See Best Practices for Decision Pages and Tags for groups
Legend:
| Status | ||
|---|---|---|
|
| Status | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Status | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Status | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Page Properties | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Recommendation
For physical materials, use "Physical Items"."Bibliographic Details"."Resource Type.”
For electronic materials, use "E-Inventory"."Bibliographic Details"."Resource Type".
Impact
Stakeholder group | Impact |
|---|---|
UC Libraries | Determinations around what and how we report are for the most part managed/owned by the UC Libraries (i.e., shared ownership). |
CDL | CDL analysts, who are responsible for building report queries at the Network Zone according to templates agreements upon by the UC Libraries, will functionally have to exclude items and titles based a variety of parameters – likely resource type and location (specific to campus special collections), and any another group of query parameters identified by campus partners. |
UCOP | Likely, this specifically pertains to our Risk Management Office, who reports holdings information to our insurer, for compliance purposes. |
Reasoning
After review, the AASA-PT Harmonization group determined that Resource Type provides the best balance of consistency, accuracy, and granularity for UCOP reporting.
Background
The AASA-PT Harmonization group reviewed all the UCOP statistics data that can be retrieved via Alma Analytics. One of the factors considered during this review was the existing ACRL and ARL requirements.
...
Resource type comes directly from fields in the bibliographic record (i.e., LDR and 008) and, as a result, tends to be more consistent across campuses.
Compared to Material Type, Resource Type also categorizes significantly fewer items as “unknown” and “undefined” types (500,000 compared to over 2.6 million).
Options Considered
Option 1 | Option 2 | Option 3 | Option 4 | Option 5 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Description | "Physical Items". "Physical Item Details". "Material Type" | "Physical Items". "Bibliographic Details". "Resource Type" | "Physical Items". "Bibliographic Details". "Category of Material" | "Physical Items". "Bibliographic Details". "Material Type" | Other data elements |
Pros | Available at the item level. | Already standardized across campuses. Fewer unknown/null results | Standardized across campuses because it comes directly from position 0 of the 007 | ||
Cons | Customized extensively based on local campus needs. If we wanted to use this, we’d need to standardize local cataloging across campuses. | Campuses cannot pull Resource Type for CDL-managed Electronic Resources. These numbers would need to be pulled within NZ Analytics. Because resource type isn’t at the physical item level, some granularity will be lost. [1] | Limited to 15 categories that do not correspond to UCOP or third-party reporting categorizations. |
...
Overall, however, the number of mis-matches is small. On the whole UC Irvine campus, for example, only ~315 CD-ROM items have an incorrect "Bibliographic Details". "Resource Type” value of “Book - Electronic” or “Book - Physical”. In a system with millions of Electronic and Physical books, these differences are not significant.
Action Log
Action/Point Person | Expected Completion Date | Notes | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
AASA-PT | Review Draft | ||
AASA-PT |
| Final Decision |